Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 329 posts

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#111

Post by dang »

golemotron wrote: post #33

Maybe the answer is to stop growing and let other parts of the country grow. The brain drain to SV has been disastrous for other communities. It's contributed to inequality and deep geographic/political polarization. Yes, you can downvote me but consider formulating a counter-argument.

Please don't break the HN guidelines by downvote-baiting. Also, please don't unsubstantive, provocative comments; that's a trollish combination.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14304869 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#113

Post by health_in_usa »

voxmatt wrote: post #31
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #16

IMO, it's gotten bad enough in the Bay Area that local control of zoning ought to get abolished. Make a new regional zoning commission, put together some clear and consistent rules about what can be built and where, and rubber-stamp everything that meets those rules. Literal rubber-stamp here, as in "you give us an affidavit saying that your plan meets the specified rules, and you get a permit to build the same day,…

I couldn't agree more. I'm originally from the Twin Cities and we solved (parts of this) problem years ago with a regional government called the Metropolitan Council. When you have a metropolitan area that spans multiple local governments, coordinating efforts around transportation, development, and environment is critical. And coordination is difficult without some sort of central authority. https://en.wikipedia.org…

This is a funny example to pick since the Metropolitan Council has demonstrated NIMBYism in its own right on a few topics. Importantly, the Council has been able to direct huge groups of people to far reaches of the Metropolis (with their attendant reduced bus service, higher crime, etc).

[1] http://www.startribune.com/brooklyn-park-brooklyn-center-acc...

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#114

Post by malandrew »

wahern wrote: post #107
klipt wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure California's CEQA is independent of the EPA.

Yes, it is. And it's _much_ easier to bring and maintain a lawsuit under CEQA. The costs of environmental review under the federal law is basically baked into the cost of doing business these days. But CEQA is too easy to abuse, and NIMBYs can and do tie up projects for years, often killing them altogether, without any serious threat of substantive environmental harm. The procedural rules of CEQA make it difficult fo…

This. CEQA is a nightmare. If I recall correctly, CEQA has been abused multiple times to prevent bikesharing and expansion of bike lanes in San Francisco. The argument made I believe was that such changes would change the car driving patterns and increase pollution from emissions.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#115

Post by jdavis703 »

Nav_Panel wrote: post #35
golemotron wrote: post #33

Maybe the answer is to stop growing and let other parts of the country grow. The brain drain to SV has been disastrous for other communities. It's contributed to inequality and deep geographic/political polarization. Yes, you can downvote me but consider formulating a counter-argument.

That's... not really how it works. Or, you could also argue that's what the area has been doing for the past 40 years, and look at the current state of housing. EDIT: I didn't downvote you, but I will elaborate: there's very little you can do to stop people from moving to California, short of forcefully putting them on buses and sending them away (which is what some cities actually do[1][2]). What you can do is figur…

The thing is living in alternative housing is also generally illegal in the state. Someone in a Redwood City tiny house was forced to move because they were blocking the view and creating a public nuisance (besides that most places don't even allow for mobile homes or live-in RVs). Living out of your car/van/truck is also potentially illegal. This is truly becoming a state where only the rich are allowed to live.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#116

Post by mathperson »

gumby wrote: post #40

For a bit of micro NIMBYism: my street in Palo Alto just instituted resident-only parking (I was the only one to object). Thus the people who cut our hair, serve our meals etc will have to walk even farther to work (my house is about 1.25 miles from downtown) while the wealthy shoppers park downtown for free. Yes it was a pain having a lot of cars on the street but I didn't feel it was a hardship that I couldn't park…

is it 100 a year? that seems quite affordable to me even if someone is making 8 dollars an hour.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#117

Post by flomo »

voxmatt wrote: post #31
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #16

IMO, it's gotten bad enough in the Bay Area that local control of zoning ought to get abolished. Make a new regional zoning commission, put together some clear and consistent rules about what can be built and where, and rubber-stamp everything that meets those rules. Literal rubber-stamp here, as in "you give us an affidavit saying that your plan meets the specified rules, and you get a permit to build the same day,…

I couldn't agree more. I'm originally from the Twin Cities and we solved (parts of this) problem years ago with a regional government called the Metropolitan Council. When you have a metropolitan area that spans multiple local governments, coordinating efforts around transportation, development, and environment is critical. And coordination is difficult without some sort of central authority. https://en.wikipedia.org…

Originally from Minneapolis. Farmlands extend infinitely outwards in all directions. The real Met Council power is over the sewer pipes, which allows them to limit sprawl and set a growth boundary. Maybe things have changed, but it used to be run mostly by real-estate types who wanted "controlled growth". (that is, it was a racket.)

In San Francisco, the situation is entirely different. We have a massive greenbelt surrounding a geographically constricted urban area, which is 99% developed. Californians have a long history of anti-growth "pull up bridges" politics. It is not so simple as putting some enlightened developers in charge.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#118

Post by JoshTriplett »

panzagl wrote: post #69
tomcam wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, developers should pay for schools? What are property taxes for?

Property taxes pay for the schools that already exist. It's hard for a district to 'save up' because, well California, and 'surplus' money should be returned to the taxpayer. If developers don't cover the cost a district usually issues a bond but that's hard because, well, California, and direct democracy rarely votes to raise property tax mil rates whatever it would cost to cover the bond. And doesn't California bas…

A state shouldn't need a per-value increase in taxes to cover anything that scales with the number of residents, which would include schools; the additional revenue from the new residents should cover that. (Unless they've utterly failed at economies of scale, but that should not need repeated fixes.) The cost of accommodating growth for new capacity should be factored into the ongoing existing costs. The people already there aren't paying for it; the new people in the new development are.

The hostility is built up of years of expecting each new increase to be the last, and yet continuing to receive urgent demands for more, all with the plaintive "for our schools and our children" exhortations that try to suggest only an absolute monster would dare to say "enough".

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#119

Post by amluto »

malandrew wrote: post #114
wahern wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is. And it's _much_ easier to bring and maintain a lawsuit under CEQA. The costs of environmental review under the federal law is basically baked into the cost of doing business these days. But CEQA is too easy to abuse, and NIMBYs can and do tie up projects for years, often killing them altogether, without any serious threat of substantive environmental harm. The procedural rules of CEQA make it difficult fo…

This. CEQA is a nightmare. If I recall correctly, CEQA has been abused multiple times to prevent bikesharing and expansion of bike lanes in San Francisco. The argument made I believe was that such changes would change the car driving patterns and increase pollution from emissions.

I apparently can't put an environmentally friendly roof on my house because of CEQA. (Historical preservation is a part of environmental quality.)

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#120

Post by r00fus »

jkimmel wrote: post #29
wfunction wrote: post #23

Does the state have a plan for the water crisis that keeps getting worse if it were to make it easier and easier for more and more people to settle down in it?

Only ~10% of California's water use is residential/urban (varies a little bit year to year) [0]. The majority of non-environmental water is used to grow cash crops in the central valley, like almonds, which take 1 gal/almond. Overall, urban residents have far less impact on climate than exurban residents who drive around in SUVs. It is in the best interests of everyone on planet Earth to make our cities denser and mo…

Forget about almonds - livestock (and to a lesser extent dairy) takes the most water per pound.

Want to prevent the central valley sinking [1]? Maybe we should have less cows and pigs and selling a lot of the meat abroad.

[1] http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drough...

Post reply on HN